Americans united in not wanting to live near data centers

Posted on by

NIMBY responses to data centers are bringing Americans together:

Photo by Mathias Reding on Pexels.com

Lyon Township voted for Donald J. Trump in 2024, but party loyalties hardly seemed to matter. In an era when Americans are divided on everything — even the cars they drive and the TV shows they watch — data centers seem to have bridged the partisan divide.

Early evidence suggests that Americans — once agnostic — are now souring on them. Last month, Maine became the first state to pass a moratorium on data centers — only to have the governor, a Democrat, to veto it — and similar measures have been introduced in at least 13 other states and dozens of municipalities.

In Virginia, a recent poll found the public had turned sharply against data centers. The same is true in Wisconsin, said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette University Law School Poll, which found that around 70 percent of people now say the costs outweigh the benefits.

Even more interesting, he said, the state’s deep partisan divide seems to have vanished when it comes to data centers.

I am a little confused why this is pitched as bridging political divides when there is a longstanding pattern in local American politics of residents resisting perceived threats to their property values and quality of life. If the American Dream continues to involve homeownership, often in suburban communities, residents will express concerns or protest strongly if a proposed nearby development will be near their homes.

Perhaps this is harder to see or remember when either only national politics are important or all local politics are seen as extensions of national politics. Local politics can often be about local interests. Locals are not necessarily opposed to growth and development – after all, growth is good in the American context – but they often do not want development that significantly changes their local experience.

At the same time, fewer Americans might be opposed to data centers in the abstract. If they want to use their AI powered devices and platforms, don’t these have to be built somewhere? This is common to NIMBY responses: people might acknowledge the need for a particular land use but few want it located near them.

How much smaller of a house do Millennials and Gen Z want?

Posted on by

Younger American adults may now be less interested in owning a big house:

Photo by Hande Yavuz on Pexels.com

This is very Millennial of me. My generation of Americans is the first in decades to collectively abandon the dream of a big house. In part, that’s likely a concession to reality: Real estate is so expensive that homeownership is, for many, a fantasy. But it also reflects changing ideas about what makes a good house and a good life, for both renters and owners. According to the National Association of Realtors’ most recent survey of American housing preferences, the majority of Millennials and Gen Zers would rather live in smaller homes in more walkable communities than larger ones in less dense areas. As a country, though, we aren’t building accordingly.

Smaller than what? This particular mentions “mansions” and “architectural marvels” in the opening and praises row houses in the latter part of the article. How small of a row house – 1,000 square feet, 1,500 square feet, etc.?

The median new home constructed in 2024 was 2,146 square feet. The United States has a lot of big houses. There is a reason it is known for McMansions. But that also means that there are plenty of units constructed that are under McMansion size.

Is it more about closer housing? This article hints at big houses amid sprawl whereas row houses offer density, walkability, and neighborhood opportunities. Or could it also be about household structures; younger generations planning to have fewer children need less space?

And are these smaller houses necessarily cheaper? Living in desirable areas – walkable, lots of cultural opportunities nearby – is not necessarily cheap, even with significantly smaller units.

We will see what happens as older generations eventually give up both McMansion era homes and other housing options plus new construction proceeds.

Zombie homes and the tax costs they might incur upon sale

Posted on by

One firm suggests taxes are the reason for a number of zombie homes in the United States:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Roughly 7.2 million single-family homes are sitting empty and being kept off the market, according to the real estate investment service Flock Homes, contributing to a nationwide housing shortage. But a closer look at these “zombie homes” shows that for many owners, selling just isn’t worth it…

According to Flock Homes, for many retirees “the tax bill triggered by a sale far exceeds the cost of simply leaving the home empty.” This includes capital gains taxes (paid on the profit from the sale) and depreciation recapture taxes (which sellers of rental properties face). The federal capital gains exemption, which applies to the sale of primary residences, was not factored into the analysis of vacant homes. Mortgage payments were not included in the analysis, since many older homeowners own their homes outright.

In the country’s biggest markets, the total tax liability for sellers 65 and older often adds up to more than $100,000 on a sale, and it can take years before the annual costs of keeping an empty home approach that amount. In the Los Angeles area, for example, the average exit tax for homeowners 65 and older is $185,000, while the annual cost of insurance, maintenance and property taxes on a zombie home is only about $10,000, the data showed.

Interesting calculations. In the short term, sitting on the zombie home appears to save money compared to selling now and paying a big tax bill. And while sitting on the zombie home, its value might go even higher!

At the same time, if someone sold one of these homes now, they would still likely pocket a lot of money even after paying taxes. The suggestion here is not that the tax costs would wipe out any gains from the sale; rather, the possible sellers just do not want to pay that much in taxes.

The overall pattern fits the shift of American houses from places to live and enjoy to commodities. Why sell if there is going to be a big tax bill? Why not try to gain as much as possible from the sale of a house?

A speed limit of 17.2 mph to help drivers pay attention

Posted on by

Creative speed limits might help catch the attention of drivers:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

In a post on social media, officials with the Outagamie County Recycling and Solid Waste said they decided on a posted speed limit of 17.3 mph because it makes drivers pause and look twice, breaking up that “autopilot” feeling that can be experienced when driving on familiar roads…

Such a precise speed limit is unusual, but the Wisconsin waste facility is not the first to try it out. Another example can be found in Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the posted speed limit at a shopping center is 8.2 mph. The decimal point has confounded Redditors for years.

Transportation planners may be turning to these more creative methods as they seek to slow drivers down. One recent study found that simply lowering the speed limit doesn’t usually work.

Changes in road design, like speed bumps, roundabouts, or curb bulb-outs, are usually more effective than changing signage.

It would be great to hear back in a few months about how the 17.3 mph sign has affected driving. How many noticed it while driving versus the number of people who heard about it online?

More broadly, provide a wide, straight road with few to no barriers and drivers will tend to want to go fast. It feels safe. They feel like they can go fast.

Design and signs might help them go a slower speed. In my area, the primary road remedies seem to involve intersections – making new intersections, turn arrows, diamond interchanges, roundabouts, etc. Plenty of people speed on a relatively wide and straight roads and speed bumps or hump are relatively unusual outside of HOAs.

Taking the NIMBY approach to taxes

Posted on by

As someone who studies suburbs, I am familiar with NIMBY responses to proposed development: residents do not want it near their dwellings, even if they agree it probably needs to be built somewhere. I was reminded of this common response when I read a description of how Americans feel about taxes:

Photo by Mark Youso on Pexels.com

Over the past decade, the share of Americans who believe that their income-tax bill is unfair has climbed by 14percentage points. A majority of Americans, in both parties and at all income levels, say that they are kicking in too much. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, which teaches people how to conscientiously object to income levies, reports surging interest in its training sessions. Grassroots groups around the country are fighting to “ax the tax.” Most people want rates to go up—just not on them.

Someone should pay taxes, but not me. I like the government programs I participate in (if they even know they are government programs – see later in the article) but someone else should fund them. The money should come from someone or somewhere else.

What does this lead to in the long run? On the NIMBY development side, it tends to put a buffer around wealthier communities who have the resources and voice to fight against development they do not want. Would the tax case equivalent be that certain groups are able to avoid higher taxes being placed on them or certain groups are able to obtain tax cuts while others are not?

At the local, state, and federal levels, it will be interesting to see how different taxing bodies try to close budget holes. There have to be some revenue sources – or cuts? – to make ends meet.

How a closed church can live on for years in local and online markers and memories

Posted on by

I recently drove down a local road and saw signs on a traffic light pole pointing different directions to nearby religious congregations. Several of the congregations are active but one has been closed for a while now. If a driver were to follow these signs, they would find the building put to another use after it was purchased by a local governmental body.

Photo by K on Pexels.com

This closed congregation is not alone: even as churches and congregations close, they can be found in numerous local and online spots. Here are a few other regular places to find or hear about closed congregations.

  1. Buildings present that may now be used by another religious congregation or are put to other uses. Some are demolished but many are transformed and some observation and research can find the previous congregation(s) that occupied that building.
  2. Online listings. There are numerous websites that continue to list congregations that closed years before. Some of them will tell you that they are closed, others will not.
  3. Obituaries. They can mention congregations people were connected to. Harder to find local print options for reading these; they can now be found online.
  4. Local history accounts. This might be particularly true for older congregations that date back the early days of a community. My experience is that congregations founded later are mentioned less in these accounts.
  5. Newspaper databases. Go back some decades and newspapers regularly ran lists of congregational services and activity and/or stories about existing congregations. Fewer local newspapers means less coverage of more recent years.
  6. Conversations with residents who have local experiences and memories.

While these are possible sources, it can be hard to look at a landscape and see what past churches and congregations might have been there. There may be some hints but there is also work to do to look further than the current built environment.

The fate of suburban voters in states that have now redistricted

Posted on by

Elections in the United States are often decided by suburban voters. As voters in cities and suburbs closer to big cities tend to vote for Democrats and voters in rural areas and outer suburbs tend to vote for Republicans, the middle suburbanites are ones both parties want to capture. Where are those voters ending up in new congressional districts a number of states have mapped?

Two examples are worth looking at: first Virginia and then Texas.

And the old and new map in Texas:

These maps shows some of the ways to neutralize voters the party in power does not want to get seats. This can take the form of long and skinny districts that go from near a big city and out into the countryside. Vary where this district starts and ends or the width of the district and those key suburban voters can be pulled in a direction that party wants.

This is often a shift away from more square or rectangular shapes that might cover geographies that are similar to each other: voters in big cities in a district with largely similar voters, suburbanites matched with suburbanites, and small towns and rural areas together.

How might this change the influence of the voters in middle suburbia? The 2026 mid-terms could offer some hints and I am sure there will be a lot of analysis ahead of the 2028 elections.

What other companies or organizations could benefit from an Illinois megaprojects bill intended to help the Chicago Bears

Posted on by

Illinois state legislators continue to discuss a potential megaprojects bill. The bill is under debate because of what the Chicago Bears might do regarding their desire for a new stadium. But it could also affect other businesses, organizations, or sectors.

Photo by http://www.kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

The article cited above said the incentives in the bill could not be used for data centers. What about a major residential development? A new skyscraper? A planned community? A resort or casino? Intermodal facilities? An airport?

I understand that the Bears are the pressing question right now, particularly as Indiana has moved at the state level to attract the Bears, but the long-term questions are also ones worth asking. States and communities in the United States continue to offer tax breaks to companies and organizations to attract development. It is hard not to play this game if other places or governmental bodies are. Illinois legislators might not be discussing any help for the Bears if Indiana had not moved quickly.

Imagine it is not a sports looking for government help but a big corporation that wants to build a (non data center) facility in Illinois. They are motivated in part because of this bill. Does this standardize tax breaks in Illinois and either attract more businesses and development or limit what local governments can do in response?

How many housing units should be added each year in Chicago?

Posted on by

Chicago is the third largest city in the United States. How many housing units should be built in the city each year?

Photo by Anatolii Hrytsenko on Pexels.com

In Chicago, fewer than 5,000 new units were completed over the past year — about 0.8% of existing inventory — nowhere near enough to meet demand. To close the gap, production will have to accelerate dramatically in the years ahead. In other words, the city of big shoulders needs to get to work. Chicago doesn’t just need more housing — it needs far more housing, an increase of a scale we haven’t seen in years. That won’t happen if lawmakers don’t get more obstacles out of the way.

The Chicago area ranks among the three worst metros in the nation for housing underproduction, behind New York and Los Angeles, according to a 2022 report from nonpartisan group Up for Growth, and the gap has not improved meaningfully since then.

The argument in this editorial is that this figure is far too low. The city needs more units built, if only to help counter rising prices for purchasing and renting.

But what exactly is the number of units a “healthy” city would add each year? 2% of inventory? 5% of inventory? How do these numbers intersect with growth or decline in population with Chicago experiencing a little of each in recent decades. How should these residential units be spread across price points so a city is not just adding really expensive units? The kind of housing residents need might not line up with what developers and builders want to construct.

There is a lot to be figured out here. Having a clear number might help prompt action. It may not. I have seen plenty of numbers over the years from groups suggesting that many units are needed to address affordable housing and little seems to be done in the biggest cities (LA and NYC are also noted above for low construction rates).

Which US states or communities do not rely on population growth and new development?

Posted on by

An article about recent changes in Florida makes this suggestion about the state’s strategy for success:

Photo by Ahsen on Pexels.com

These side-by-side trends could spell trouble for a state whose economy relies on continued population growth and real-estate development.

Not every state and community can have the kind of growth and development run that Florida has had in recent decades. In 1950, the state had 2.7 million people and today has over 23 million people. Air conditioning plus available real estate plus warm weather and natural features plus immigrants plus retirees have contributed to the third most populous state.

But don’t most American places want something like this to happen? It may not be possible due to history, a lack of development and capital, population stagnation or decline, few features that possible residents or businesses would desire. Yet growth is good in the United States. Stuff being built, people moving in, new activity is all good. The places where things are happening are getting ahead, other places are falling behind or are way out of the picture.

If these trends discussed continue, what happens to Florida? Does it become like many other places that want growth but cannot seem to make it happen? Do the new hot states pass it by? Do leaders try to chase new or different opportunities in hoping to revive their glory days of growth? The Florida that looked unstoppable may become an afterthought, all because the focus on growth moves its lens to somewhere else.